Many men get gang raped in prison, become life long sex slaves, are severely beaten, and contract deadly AIDS for simple possession of photos. Criminal prison rapist gangs are especially ruthless with “Child rapists” (who mostly are in jail for consensual sex or mere consensual fondling)

and now this insanity: airline safety will be compromised

Airline safety sacrificed due to insane child porn laws

Planes may get blown up & passengers may get killed, due to child porn law compliance

Airplanes might get highjacked, might get blown up, or flown into towers. That is less important then silly child porn laws. One the one side the danger of many people’s violent death. On the other hand the danger of what? Some security official getting turned on when seeing x-ray photos? Who will get protected?

Almost all so called “child porn” in reality is “adolescent nudity” or consensual “sexual activities” of sexually active teenagers. We are not not aware of any deaths due to child porn production. Most child porn is totally harmless, like adolescents taking their own photos, or formerly legal 16 year old sex films made legally in Holland 30 years ago.

In his 43-year career as a federal judge, Jack B. Weinstein has come to be identified by his efforts to combat what he calls “the unnecessary cruelty of the law.”[…]

Judge Weinstein, who sits in the United States District Court in Brooklyn, has twice thrown out convictions that would have ensured that the man spend at least five years behind bars. He has pledged to break protocol and inform the next jury about the mandatory prison sentence that the charges carry. And he recently declared that the man, who is awaiting a new trial, did not need an electronic ankle bracelet because he posed “no risk to society.”

There is little public sympathy for collectors of child pornography. Yet across the country, an increasing number of federal judges have come to their defense, criticizing changes to sentencing laws that have effectively quadrupled their average prison term over the last decade.

Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a 20-year child pornography sentence by ruling that the sentencing guidelines for such cases, “unless applied with great care, can lead to unreasonable sentences.” The decision noted that the recommended sentences for looking at pictures of children being sexually abused sometimes eclipse those for actually sexually abusing a child.

Judge Weinstein has gone to extraordinary lengths to challenge the strict punishments, issuing a series of rulings that directly attack the mandatory five-year prison sentence faced by defendants charged with receiving child pornography.

“I don’t approve of child pornography, obviously,” he said in an interview this week. But, he also said, he does not believe that those who view the images, as opposed to producing or selling them, present a threat to children.

“We’re destroying lives unnecessarily,” he said. “At the most, they should be receiving treatment and supervision.” […}

“I don’t see Judge Weinstein as a judge,” Mr. Polizzi said during an interview as tears rolled down his face. “I see him as my father. He helps people. He doesn’t destroy lives the way the prosecutor has. He’s the one who is going to set me free from the court.”nytimes.com/2010/05/22/nyregion/22judge.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

And Judge Weinstein seems to talk about REAL child porn, 5 year olds engaging in sex. Convicting a guy for watching 10-17 year old girls dancing provocatively, wearing leotards (in Knox vs US), or for inadvertently downloading photos of 17 year old nudes is even more disproportionally cruel.

It is amazing that judge Weinstein has not been arrested, deposed, assassinated yet. He really goes against the grain of the entire child porn witch hunt.

“Just because I like pictures of 14 year old girls
doesn’t mean I prowl shopping malls to rape and kill”

Compare:
1) Just because I like the “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” movie
doesn’t mean I will chop up children with a chain saw
2) Just because I like the “Terminator”
doesn’t mean I will machine-gun children or adults

Just because I happen to like to jerk off to pictures of 14 year old girls with no pubic hair, doesn’t mean I’m prowling shopping malls for children to rape and kill, and I should not be lumped into the same group as those who would consider doing so. It just amazes me that the so called religious right, is spending so much time in the newsgroups that they would like to see outlawed. And the language they use is anything but Godly. I think these are the same people who use religion to mask the overwhelming desires they have to fornicate with their own kids. In fact, isn’t it usually the church alderman/corporate exec. that gets busted for incestuous behaviour with their own kids.
Sexual repression does weird things to people. And if these people would read their Bibles once and awhile they would find that relations between older men and women barely past the onset of menses was the rule of the day in past history. These are the same people who want to protect the unborn, but wouldn’t piss on a 5 yr. old minority kid if they were on fire. These are the same people who clamor for more “nanny” laws to protect themselves from themselves. I guess they have a hard time controlling urges and thinking for themselves. [,,,]

And what about National Geographic magazine? By the standards being imposed on the cyber-community, they are the largest distributer of child porn. Why is it OK to look at non-white children sans clothing?

This article is 15 years old. Today he probably would not dare to say what he is saying: “just because I happen to like to jerk off to pictures of 14 year old girls with no pubic hair, doesn’t mean I’m prowling shopping malls for children to rape and kill” . He probably would be arrested for thinking of a 14 year old girl without possessing the photos.

‘I Was Doing Academic Research’ Not an Adequate Defense for Child Porn Possession

A professor who studied child porn on an academic research project, and then deleted all files, had thumbnails and cache files left over on his computer. He got a “lenient” one year prison sentence.

Suffering is created for victimless crime. What good do these convictions bring with them? What do they protect? Just unnecessary suffering!

James Kent was a professor of public administration at Marist College in New York. Back in 1999, he contemplated writing a book about the legislation of child pornography, and how to differentiate between what is and is not child porn for the purposes of criminal prosecution.

To do his research, Kent surfed various sites — including “School Backyard” (Editor’s note: Yuck!) — and downloaded lots of images. He sent a note in July 1999 to a potential collaborator on the book, “Sooner or later someone at this college is going to wonder why I keep looking at porno sites. . . Jim.”

In fact, it took a few years for someone at the college to wonder about it. It came to the college’s attention in 2007 during a virus scan. When it did, it led to felony child pornography charges for Kent and a prison sentence… […]

Kent was found guilty of 130 child porn felonies last year, and sentenced to one to three years in prison. (That seems lenient in comparison to Corey Beantree who I wrote about on Tuesday, who was sentenced to 10 years in Alabama after the Geek Squad found a child porn video on his laptop.) […]

“There is no safe harbor for researching child porn,” says cyberlaw professor Eric Goldman. “This is why I call child porn ‘toxic’–there is no easy way to legally cure even a single download of child porn.”

Pedophile panic is marking our men as bad

The distrust of males has been creeping up on us, fanned by the sick minds of a few who have stolen the innocence of children, and left heartache in their wake.
But can you now be guilty simply by gender?
Alan from Brisbane has this story: he was at South Bank when he saw a small girl, about four years old, wandering along the river’s edge and crying.
He watched as more than 30 people walked by without helping. He stopped one of them, a woman, and asked her to help him help the child.
“I told her why – I’d be accused of being a pedophile,” he said. “If that little girl had fallen into the river and I dived in after her I’d be on the front page as a hero; but when she was only 30cm from falling in I’d be called a pedophile.”
How did we allow ourselves to get to the point, he wrote on a Daily Telegraph blog, where caring people are considered pedophiles?
Just stop reading this, and ask the man sitting nearest to you. His reaction would probably mirror Alan’s – because society has made men feel that way.
This is another Brisbane man on the same blog: “I know a teacher who was accused of rape by a schoolgirl because he refused her advances, and he lost his job, his wife, his kids and his life. Never mind that she admitted it and cleared him. This culture has to change, or this sort of rule will become more common.”

[…]

Children cannot use Swimming pool changing room
because men are scared of pedophilia charges

Allan, from the Gold Coast, explains it this way: “Why would a male teacher want to put himself in that position? All it takes is for some smart-alec kid to joke about a male teacher perving on him and (his) professional life is over . . .”
Matt of Perth: “I like this rule. You’re in more danger of being falsely accused than you are of actually being a victim.”
Aaron: “The last thing you want to be doing is changing from your swimming gear to work clothes or vice versa and find out a couple days later you’ve been accused of exposing yourself or something of the kind.”
The Doc of Sydney: “I cannot get out of the pool change room fast enough if children are there as I have no defence against a false allegation.”
Clancy: “I would have thought banning parents from taking pictures of their children at the beach would have been enough to wake people up from this insane pedophile mania . . . but apparently not.”
Someone else: “Why don’t you just stop males from being teachers to protect the student, or just stop fathers from being parents to their sons, in case they get branded a pedophile.”
John from Alice Springs calls it “pedophobia”, but its consequences are bigger than that. We’re creating a generation of young boys who don’t have confidence in their own sexuality; sons who think their gender marks them as bad; and daughters who grow up with few, if any, male role models.
And in that scenario, men and women lose out.

Legally, child pornography was first distinguished from adult pornography in the United States in 1982, with the case of New York v. Ferber. Over the course of the next fourteen years, a succession of legal decisions or government reports broadened the definition of child pornography until it meant any photographic image, of real children or not, that in any one person’s opinion might seem “lewd.” Key cases, government reports, and legislation include the 1986 Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography (the Meese Report), Massachusetts v. Oakes (1989), Knox v. the United States (1991–1994), and the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention

Brooke Shields was only fifteen years old at the time she posed for a notoriously provocative jeans ad for Calvin Klein in 1980. Although the ad campaign focused public attention on the issue of child sexuality, there was no significant backlash against Calvin Klein as a result. .

Act. The production, distribution, or consumption of child pornography became punishable under federal law by prison terms of up to twenty years. In addition, most states passed laws requiring all photographic film processors to report any pictures they found suspicious to the police. faqs.org/childhood/Bo-Ch/Child-Pornography.html

In Knox vs. United States, a poor sap got 5 years for possessing videos of 10-17 year old girls dancing in Leotards. No suffering caused to the girls. Lots of suffering caused to Mr. Knox, and lots of legal resources wasted that could instead be devoted to decrease suffering of real victims in real violent crimes.

In Knox, a man who had previously been convicted of receiving child pornography through the mail ordered video tapes (by mail) of girls between the ages of ten and seventeen who, in the Court’s words, “were dancing or gyrating in a fashion not natural for their age.” The girls wore bikini bathing suits, leotards, or underwear – none of the girls in the videos was nude. The videos were set to music, and it appeared that someone off-camera was directing the girls. The photographer videotaped the girls dancing, and zoomed in on each girl’s pubic area for an extended period of time. Knox was prosecuted under United States Child Pornography laws. adultweblaw.com/laws/childporn.htm

The moderator at Reddit Men’s rights is not only (rightly) worried about feminist wrath.

He already agrees with most feminist “progress” of recent decades.

The moderator wrote “Trading nude sexual images of a (16y) Juliet or (16y) Romeo is rightly verboten.”

We emphasized the word “rightly”. We think it is not right to put a man in jail for 5, 10, 20 years for possessing such photos. We do not understand why this is “rightly” verboten, while the mainstream press can distribute child clubbing, killing mutilating.

And “Male sexuality is feared and derided on many fronts. We absolutely cannot advocate expression of that sexuality towards children, (unless it comes in age-appropriate, socially appropriate forms from children) because it can far too easily hurt children.”

We think that expression of sexuality towards 17 year old girls in Germany (age of consent 16) usually does not hurt the 17 year old children.

As you know, “child”, by modern definition, is anyone under 18.

So the reddit men’s rights moderator cannot advocate the law of most European countries with an age of consent of 16.

He already is totally convinced that people in the 1970ies were a bunch of dangerous criminal perverts, because at that time ALL main stream newspapers and news magazines in Britain, Germany, … carried nude photos of 16, 14 or 12 year old girls. Possession of such magazines by collectors and museums and libraries is a heinous crime. The German Magazine “Der Spiegel” already removed the “Lolita” issue of 1977 from the web archives.

Rex says:

Like or Dislike: 00

In no way should Google filter. They do not have the legal right to and the Government does not have the legal right to make google. Read Mr.Cullen’s revolutionary report on child porn under the Winnipeg Sun’s editorial titled Beware of Ignatieff’s Common Touch and you will see what I mean. (Note; it is not the first post you click but it is the 2nd or third post) -Read only the first 43 pages and if you want to leave a comment click the post that reads Battle For Free Speech and leave it there. Mr.Cullen’s report rocks the world!

[…] photos of adolescent and child nudity are so dangerous, we even sacrifice airline safety due to insane child porn laws, to make sure nobody can see the outlines of an adolescent body on an airport scanner’s […]

[…] federal child porn sentencing laws. In May 2010, The New York Times profiled U.S. District Court Judge Jack Weinstein, who after 43 years on the bench has essentially gone rogue, twice throwing out convictions of a […]

[…] victimize adults that, by sexual orientation, seek child pornography. The prohibition takes away the chance to use a harmless outlet, in the privacy of their home, that does not harm real live children. In the US, possession of photos carries higher penalties then actual forcible child abuse. possession of photos carries higher penalties then actual forcible child abuse. […]

[…] a harmless outlet, in the privacy of their home, that does not harm real live children. In the US, possession of photos carries higher penalties then actual forcible child abuse.The issue is further complicated by manipulative language that intentionally conflates children and […]

[…] in defending adult-child sexuality. But we think that the hysteria and penalties are way overblown (Judge Weinstein). There seem to be scientific findings that the seemingly unnatural adult-child sexuality might be […]